Debt = Slavery.

CFM said:
Socialism isn't evolving. It's taking a step back. You don't blame the system because many within in refuse to try. You automatically assume those living in poverty are there because the system is a failure never considering that it could be the people that are failures in life.
Click to expand...

1% of the people hold 99% of the wealth. We do indeed need to take a "step back" from that situation. Also, you consider somebody not wanting to be the rower in this photo to be a failure?
CRT 1.jpg
 
CFM said:
You're running from the fact that despite individuals within it being failures, many have succeeded because of the system. That's why you're being mocked. The socialism you support automatically means failure because it works off the concept that one group is responsible for taking care of another group because the latter refuses to do their job.
Click to expand...

Don't worry. I won't call you a clueless moron. (Though you deserve to be called that) I will tell you why things work the way they do. The slavery motive has already been established. So I will move on to the next thing. Very many people are employed. To most of them, their jobs are important. Especially if they pay well. But when the population increases from people having children, what happens when those children enter the work force. They start doing the jobs of the other employed people. This will tend to drive down the wages that those other employed people have come to depend on. And that will raise a stink. So what is the easiest solution? The one that is most often used. Start a war! That does a good job at "taking care of" that group. But me, I prefer socialism. If necessary, featherbedding.
 
fandango said:
1% of the people hold 99% of the wealth. We do indeed need to take a "step back" from that situation. Also, you consider somebody not wanting to be the rower in this photo to be a failure?
View attachment 7154
Click to expand...

I consider the group that constantly votes for a living and wants it funded by those THEY think have too much while blaming the system to be failures. What we don't need is socialism.
 
fandango said:
Don't worry. I won't call you a clueless moron. (Though you deserve to be called that) I will tell you why things work the way they do. The slavery motive has already been established. So I will move on to the next thing. Very many people are employed. To most of them, their jobs are important. Especially if they pay well. But when the population increases from people having children, what happens when those children enter the work force. They start doing the jobs of the other employed people. This will tend to drive down the wages that those other employed people have come to depend on. And that will raise a stink. So what is the easiest solution? The one that is most often used. Start a war! That does a good job at "taking care of" that group. But me, I prefer socialism. If necessary, featherbedding.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you do prefer socialism. Most that can't make it on their own and/or who believe it's the government place to do for them what they refuse to do for themselves prefer it.

Socialism is like having someone else's credit card. You get what you want, much of which you don't deserve, while someone else gets the bill.
 
CFM said:
I consider the group that constantly votes for a living and wants it funded by those THEY think have too much while blaming the system to be failures. What we don't need is socialism.
Click to expand...

First of all, nobody votes for a living. Next, THINK they have too much? It is a matter of statistics. There is no thinking necessary. Next, the system IS a failure. And we already have socialism. Just not enough of it. For example, to hell with the government bribing companies with tax breaks to create more jobs. They just need to create them themselves and cut out all the dead weight middlemen.
 
CFM said:
I consider the group that constantly votes for a living and wants it funded by those THEY think have too much while blaming the system to be failures. What we don't need is socialism.
Click to expand...

True, socialism is for the aristocracy.
 
CFM said:
I consider the group that constantly votes for a living and wants it funded by those THEY think have too much while blaming the system to be failures. What we don't need is socialism.
Click to expand...

True, socialism is for the aristocracy.
 
CFM said:
I'm sure you do prefer socialism. Most that can't make it on their own and/or who believe it's the government place to do for them what they refuse to do for themselves prefer it.

Socialism is like having someone else's credit card. You get what you want, much of which you don't deserve, while someone else gets the bill.
Click to expand...

One time on TV I heard of an airline pilot who needed to be on food stamps. On another program I heard of an Asian Indian American family with children. Between the mother and father, they made well over $100,000 a year. But found themselves having to live in a homeless shelter. Next, I know what the government's business is. As Calvin Coolidge once basically said, "The business of government IS business." And I KNOW that sucks ass! Also, what is your brainwashed definition of "Making it." On second thought, don't tell me. It would probably be as bad as licking maggot vomit.

Here's another thing to consider. I have heard of many poor people in countries much poorer than the U.S. being asked if they were happy. Most said they were. Probably because they didn't have others lording their wealth over them. Face it. The REAL problem is that shitheads like you aren't really happy unless you are making many other's unhappy. People for whom your standard of living wouldn't even be possible without their menial labor. Tell me more about what they don't deserve, asshole.
 
fandango said:
First of all, nobody votes for a living. Next, THINK they have too much? It is a matter of statistics. There is no thinking necessary. Next, the system IS a failure. And we already have socialism. Just not enough of it. For example, to hell with the government bribing companies with tax breaks to create more jobs. They just need to create them themselves and cut out all the dead weight middlemen.
Click to expand...

Those living off what honorable people that are forced to support them because they WON'T support themselves vote for a living every time they cast a ballot for a politician that wants more socialism. It must be a sad existence for those people knowing they are lazy and worthless to society. Who knows, judging from how they view things, most are too stupid to understand that for them to get something another person had to pay taxes to fund it. They likely think the government prints more money to pay for their pitiful existence.
 
CFM said:
Socialism if for the low end freeloaders that couldn't make a living for themselves if their miserable lives depended on it.
Click to expand...

Not in america, it's a bit more like this:

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses
 
fandango said:
One time on TV I heard of an airline pilot who needed to be on food stamps. On another program I heard of an Asian Indian American family with children. Between the mother and father, they made well over $100,000 a year. But found themselves having to live in a homeless shelter. Next, I know what the government's business is. As Calvin Coolidge once basically said, "The business of government IS business." And I KNOW that sucks ass! Also, what is your brainwashed definition of "Making it." On second thought, don't tell me. It would probably be as bad as licking maggot vomit.

Here's another thing to consider. I have heard of many poor people in countries much poorer than the U.S. being asked if they were happy. Most said they were. Probably because they didn't have others lording their wealth over them. Face it. The REAL problem is that shitheads like you aren't really happy unless you are making many other's unhappy. People for whom your standard of living wouldn't even be possible without their menial labor. Tell me more about what they don't deserve, asshole.
Click to expand...

You heard? You should see a psychiatrist. You're hearing voices.

Businesses provide things to society that no low end freeloader could do is he wanted to. When it comes to investing, I'll take the business that produces over the kid whose own parents doesn't think he/she is a good enough investment to pay for their college.

You keep hearing things.

I don't care whether or not someone else is happy. Their life isn't my concern but for some reason you think mine is of your concern. I love my standard of living. It allows me to do lots of things that those you hold in such high regard will NEVER be able to do. If they ever figure out that whining and bitching that they don't have what someone else has isn't getting the job done, they may end up earning what they deserve. Until then, they can live as begging assholes that will have to accept what they're given whether it's enough or not.
 
Fentoine Lum said:
Not in america, it's a bit more like this:

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses
Click to expand...

That's just a whining rant of a low end freeloader that knows he'll never be to the level of his superior no matter how hard he tries. It's OK, boy. We'll continue to throw you crumbs although you don't deserve that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top